Other platforms

Will GalCiv III be supporting any platforms other than Windows? Specifically, you really need to release a Mac & Linux version. You'll find there are a lot of eager Mac/Linux gamers out there who are ready to throw their money at you for native versions. How about some love for us non-Windows users?

Hey, all we can ask is that you seriously consider it. If nothing else, please at least try to make it play nice with Wine. I can play GalCiv 2 in a Wineskin, but it has always been a bit wonky, and some things still don't work right.

It's a bit sad that with the revolution is happening on gaming world, you're still "evaluating other platforms". I'm a GalCiv franchise enthusiast but I played GalCiv2 only and entirely on linux through wine. But now times are changing and you can't ask me to do the same with GC3. So if you want one more customer, with respect, stop evaluating and start planning.

I'll put it this way: I've had fewer compelling reasons to reboot into Windows to play Fallen Enchantress ever since Paradox Interactive released Crusader Kings II and Europa Universalis IV for Linux. That is to say that my chances of buying Galactic Civilizations III would be significantly improved if Stardock released a Linux version.

How hard would a linux version be to accomplish when it looks like so much of what has been said about the game so far is a heavy reliance on dx 10 or 11?

Any non-Windows version, whether for Mac or Linux or Android or iOS or PlayStation 4 or Wii U, would have to make a break from DirectX. Those are all OpenGL platforms, and since Windows is also capable of running OpenGL, seems now would be a great opportunity for Stardock to embrace OpenGL to improve portability rather than painting themselves into a corner with DirectX.

Well, hopefully they can successfully translate from DirectX to OpenGL, because I don't know that Wine can handle DX10 or 11 that well, if at all. Which means GalCiv 3 could be truly Windows locked. I also wonder why developers insist on locking themselves into one platform like that when there are so many other eager gamers on other platform that would love to buy games like this. A Mac version (and Linux, too) should be a no-brainer at this point in time. Even iOS and Android should be possible; this kind of game is a natural for tablet interfaces.

Like many Mac/Linux users, I rely on Wine for a lot of my gaming, which is fine for older games. But I'm done dual-booting; I don't even have a bootcamp partition anymore. If Stardock doesn't release a Mac version of GalCiv 3, then I'll move on to other games. But I really, really hope they do. Endless Space was a nice try, but I'm still waiting for the perfect 4X space game to come along and fill the MoO-shaped void in my life.

I do wonder how many Linux users there really are? I tried it and found it to be a pain in the ass.

We're not a majority, but we are significant. I read an interview recently where a developer said they increased their sales by 10% simply by making their game available on Steam for Linux, and the Humble Bundles gets huge support from Linux gamers who regularly account for 10 to 25% of sales, often pushing OSX purchases into third place.

In other words, it is worth the effort for a developer to port their game to other platforms besides Windows.

Stardock has, in the past, expressed an extreme devotion to being Windows-only that never made much sense to me, but which makes even less sense now. I hope that they have truly reevaluated that position.

I also wonder why developers insist on locking themselves into one platform like that when there are so many other eager gamers on other platform that would love to buy games like this.

"Hrm, lets see... it'll take me a year to release this game with DirectX. If I go with OpenGL, it'll take me months to learn OpenGL, then a year to code it... or maybe longer, since I don't know OpenGL that well. And most serious gamers use windows, so it's not like I"ll be gaining a lot of market share by going with the less programmer-friendly technology..."

Point made? They already know DirectX, they don't know OpenGL. And since most serious gamers already have a windows box...

Making the move to OpenGL would be a one-time, upfront investment that would pay off in the long run, and that's assuming learning OpenGL is as difficult as you imply it is -- and besides, what graphics programmer worth his pay isn't already familiar with API's besides DirectX. I seriously doubt a switch to OpenGL would add over a year to the development process.

Making the move to OpenGL would be a one-time, upfront investment that would pay off in the long run, and that's assuming learning OpenGL is as difficult as you imply it is. I seriously doubt it would add over a year to the development process.

If you read my post carefully, I said that learning OpenGL would require a few months investment in time. And I'm not implying: I'm outright stating that OpenGL and DirectX are both hard to learn, complicated, and require very different handling. I should know... I've worked with both.

DirectX is superior to OpenGL. Why go backwards? I understand a small percentage of users are trying to play games on Linux and Mac. I'd rather have them spend time and money in making the game the best it can be. That is why they are already using DirectX platform and only on 64 bit systems.

Ultimately its up to each dev to decide whether the investment into OpenGL is worth it. How much does it cost to re-tool everything to OpenGL vs the increased revenue. Most data up until this point have been from small devs that paid fairly little money to do the retool which meant that there was veyr little risk involved in 'trying' it. Then there's lost opportunity cost of doing the OpenGL implementation instead of other things that actually have to get done.

Going purely digital seems to make sense for GalCiv3. Other platforms, to me seems a bit iffy given the cost vs benfits.

Quoting Mtn_Man, reply 19 Making the move to OpenGL would be a one-time, upfront investment that would pay off in the long run, and that's assuming learning OpenGL is as difficult as you imply it is. I seriously doubt it would add over a year to the development process.

If you read my post carefully, I said that learning OpenGL would require a few months investment in time. And I'm not implying: I'm outright stating that OpenGL and DirectX are both hard to learn, complicated, and require very different handling. I should know... I've worked with both.

You said "months to learn OpenGL, then a year to code it... or maybe longer", which I think is an exaggeration, especially if we assume that any graphics programmer worth his pay is already familiar with API's other than DirectX.